You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 8, 2016

Protection of 3D Printing in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology, also known as “additive manufacturing,” is the process by which a physical object is produced from a 3D digital model, often by being built up with many successive layers of material. In recent years, the technology has become much more accessible to businesses and individual consumers, and it will likely have a significant impact on several major industries, including healthcare, automotive, and aerospace, among others.

3D printing allows goods to be produced more economically, in less time, on smaller scales, and in more efficient and versatile ways. The technology has, however, raised a number of serious questions about whether patent, design, and copyright law can protect the technologies that are used to create the 3D objects as well as the objects themselves. This article discusses 3D printing under Thailand’s legal framework.

Patents

In contrast to producing an object out of a mold or cast, 3D printing produces a physical object from a digital file. A digital image is created through a computer program that creates two- or three-dimensional graphical representations of objects. The object is built up layer by layer using mixtures of inks, additives, plastics, titanium, silver, steel, wax, photopolymers, and polycarbonate metals, depending on the nature of the end product.

Under Thai law, one distinct type of patent is the invention patent, which includes standard patents and petty patents.

Standard patents.  The Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), as amended in 1992 and 1999, provides standard patent protection over an invention for up to 20 years from the date of filing the application.

While Thai law excludes certain subject matters from patentability, such as certain living organisms, scientific or mathematical rules and theories, computer programs, methods for medical treatment, and so on, 3D printing technology does not seem to fall into an excluded category. The additive manufacturing process and its end products are patentable so long as they meet the criteria for patentability, including novelty, an inventive step, and industrial applicability.

Petty patents.  A petty patent provides an alternative form of protection for the 3D printing process and its end products. In order to be patentable as a petty patent, an invention must be new and capable of industrial application, and there is no requirement to have an inventive step. The duration of protection for a petty patent is six years, and the term may be renewed twice for periods of two years per term.

Both standard and petty patents provide adequate protection for inventions involving 3D printing. Complex products with a number of constituent parts may be protected by a standard patent. The inventive step requirement, however, is a major obstacle to applicants who want to obtain a standard patent for their 3D printing technology. Simple products can be protected by petty patents so long as those products are new.

As standard patents and petty patents provide different means of protection, applicants may seek protection of complex 3D printed parts under standard patents, and at the same time, obtain protection for simple 3D printed parts that will be assembled into a larger patented product under petty patents.

Patent infringement can include the unauthorized production of patented products, including producing goods by 3D printing. In addition, selling, stocking for sale, offering for sale, and importing patented products can also amount to infringement. A patent holder may file a criminal or civil lawsuit, or both, against an infringer or an alleged infringer. An infringer who intentionally commits an infringement may be subjected to penalties including imprisonment of up to two years and a fine up to THB 400,000, or both.

Although Thai patent law has provisions that provide for limitation of rights, use for private and non-commercial purposes is not included in the statutory limitations. As a result, it is not possible to raise a defense against a patent infringement claim that a patented article was 3D printed at home for personal use.

As patent protection in Thailand is still in the early stages of development, legal literature, legal doctrines, and judicial interpretations of the law are limited. The existing law seems inadequate in dealing with issues of infringement raised by 3D printing. For example, the rule on contributory infringement under Thai patent law is not clear, particularly when it applies to 3D printing technology.

Since there are no explicit provisions on contributory infringement, it is still unclear whether manufacturing of spare parts for incorporation into patented products constitutes an infringing act. It is equally unclear as to whether the replacement of a part which forms part of a product protected by a patent will constitute a noninfringing repair or is considered an infringing making of the patented article.

Designs

Another type of patent is the design patent. Thai law defines a design as “any configuration of a product or composition of lines or colors which gives a special appearance to a product and can serve as a pattern for a product of industry or handicraft.” Legal protection is available for both two- and three-dimensional designs. The only requirement for design patents is that an industrial or a handicraft design must be new. Design rights must be patented, and once they are patented, the patent will protect the external features of a product but not the technical function of the product.

Design protection will be used more than other forms of protection for 3D printing technology, as a design is most readily found to subsist in articles produced by 3D printing. A design patent provides a ten-year term of protection from the date of filing an application. The rights under a design patent for a 3D printed object will be infringed if a party makes the object without permission of the rights owner. Offering, importing, disposing, or using a product produced by 3D printing in which the patented design is incorporated will be an infringing act, and the wrongdoer may be subjected to penalties including two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to THB 400,000, or both.

The exclusive rights available under a design patent are very favorable to patent holders. The only defense which is available against a design infringement action is use for research or educational purposes. Noncommercial uses cannot be made of a patented design. If 3D printing is done privately and for non-commercial purposes by an individual in his or her home or for personal use, this constitutes infringement.

Unlike the laws of certain other jurisdictions, Thai patent law does not provide a spare-part exception as a defense against infringement of design patents. Therefore, it would be considered an infringing act if a party uses a 3D printer to produce spare parts embodying a patented design to be used for genuine repair purposes for articles—for example, a particular bumper bar to be fitted with a car.

Copyright

In Thailand, copyrighted works include creative works in the literary, dramatic, artistic, musical, audiovisual, cinematographic, sound-recording, broadcasting, or any other work in the literary, scientific, or artistic sector of the author—irrespective of the method or form of its expression.

An object made by 3D printing can be protected as an artistic copyrighted work. However, the functional aspects of a product are excluded from copyright protection. Copyright can be raised against a party who attempts to use 3D printing methods to print images or graphic designs onto the surface of an article. It would also constitute copyright infringement if a copyrighted 3D-article is produced, such as the shape of a vase, sculpture, mobile phone case, etc.

Thai law protects computer programs as literary works. The term “computer program” is defined as “an instruction, a set of instructions, or any other material employed to enable the functioning of the computer or to obtain a certain result, irrespective of the form of the language of the computer program.” The computer programs used to create a computer-aided design and to operate 3D printers would enjoy copyright protection.

A bundle of rights introduced under Thailand’s recently updated copyright law now includes the right to make material available online or to electronically transmit material. Where a party makes computer-aided design files available via the Internet for file sharing, this would constitute copyright infringement. The term of copyright under Thai law is 50 years after the death of the author, with the exception of the work of applied art of which the term of protection lasts for 25 years.

From the above, the development of Thailand’s IP laws is still in its infancy. The rapid development of 3D printing technology seems to be beyond the reach of the country’s intellectual property infrastructure. Several complex issues remain unclear and will be left to judicial interpretation. Social and economic impacts stemming from this technology have to be clearly understood. Thailand may soon need to introduce 3D printing legislation in order to cope with the challenges brought about by this emerging technology.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More